It has been estimated that there are as many as 10 insects alive in the world at any instant. While many of these insects are found in forests and other such areas, many are found in areas that are also populated by humans. While insects in many instances are necessary for the continued viability of the environment, they are often considered undesirable pests in areas of common habitation with humans. This is particularly true in urban areas.
Because of this, many cities, municipalities and counties go to great lengths and spend vast amounts of money and time in controlling, or attempting to control, insects in such urban areas. Control of the Gypsy Moth is a prime example of the great lengths to which many urban governments will go. Many governments spend vast amounts of money on airplanes, helicopters, and other aerial spraying devices to spread insecticide that is intended to control insects such as the Gypsy Moth. Special land-based teams are also used in control of this pest. As is well documented, all of this effort and expense is often only minimally effective.
There have been numerous proposals for controlling insects in areas where they are considered as being undesirable pests. These proposals range from the so-called first-generation pesticides: kerosene to coat ponds, arsenate of lead to poison pests that chew, and the like; to second-generation pesticides such as DDT; to third-generation pesticides which include insect hormones that can be made specific and which are not susceptible to insect resistance by evolution.
While pesticides have been effective in certain cases, such as on farms and the like, the have not found extensive use in urban areas for several reasons. First, they have been spread by the above-mentioned aerial spraying techniques which generally are not efficient in urban areas, and, second, some people in urban areas simply do not want such chemicals placed on their property. Such restrictions make aerial spreading of such pesticides in urban areas difficult if not impossible.
Still further, even if sprayed, some pesticides do not last long enough to fully control insects. Repeated rains or the like may dilute or even remove some pesticides. The expensive and onerous spraying operations and programs should thus be repeated on a periodic basis. This repetition is often not carried out because of logistics, cost and the like. Thus, spraying pesticides, even the third-generation pesticides that may not be harmful to humans, in urban areas, presents several problems.
Another problem, is the problem of ensuring contact between the insect and the pesticide. Many insects are quite mobile, and in fact, are more mobile than the sprayed pesticide. Once the pesticide has been deployed, it is generally quite immobile, and insects only contact it through chance encounters. This is not a problem for farmers, or the like who are only interested in protecting specific crop areas from specific pests, but does present a problem to urban residents who are trying to rid a large area of a large variety of pests. Thus, the spraying of urban areas suffers still another drawback.
Accordingly, there is a need for a means and a method for effectively and continuously controlling insects in an urban environment.